DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Clinton email release

Yes lol Even some of the DNC emails had cyrillic metadata.

Do you have proof it was the Russians, or is that just the supposition of the democrats?

I think the real question is why were these morons using hackable gmail accounts? Blaming someone for walking through an open door is just defection.

"Corporations are people too."

The worst supreme court decision in American history.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...energy-company/

So, who's keeping up with the ruskies now? 75000 shares in Putin's company?

Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s membership on the executive board of an energy company, Joule Unlimited, which received millions from a Putin-connected Russian government fund, also included “75,000 common shares,” according to an email exchange uncovered by the Wikileaks hacks.

erik...you talking about the Joule Unlimited that is based in Bedford, Massachusetts?

The Joule Unlimited that is a producer of alternative energy technologies?

Putin's company?...I don't think so!

Basing its decision on the Founders’ belief that concentrated government power threatens Americans’ liberty, a federal appeals court has ruled that the Constitution forbids a federal regulatory agency from being run by a single director. This is the latest challenge to the power of independent federal agencies – a challenge that has been running for decades and has been a favorite cause of businesses and conservative advocates.

In fact, the appeals court’s opinion on Tuesday embraced the derogatory phrase that those challengers have been using for years, calling the agencies the “headless fourth branch of the U.S. Government.” It said that those agencies exercise “enormous power over the economic and social life of the United States.”

It added that, “because of their massive power and the absence of presidential supervision and direction,” the independent agencies “pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

If that decision withstands further appeals, which apparently are planned, it could be one of the most consequential decisions of modern times on the structure of the federal government, putting added power into the hands of each occupant of the White House.

Although asked to rule that independent agencies, as such, are always unconstitutional if they are not directly supervised by the president, the appeals court said it was bound by a 1935 Supreme Court decision upholding the creation of such agencies to use executive-style power while not being answerable to the White House. That ultimate issue, though, will remain in the case, and could be pressed by the agencies’ critics as this particular case unfolds further.

For now, the effect of the 2-to-1 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was confined to a single agency – the six-year-old Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

Created as a part of the sweeping congressional attempt to reform the nation’s financial industry in the wake of the 2008 near-collapse of that industry, the so-called “Dodd-Frank Act,” the Bureau has broad power to enforce 19 different federal laws that seek to protect consumers’ financial interests. It can regulate, the appeals court noted, “everything from home finance to student loans to credit cards to banking practices.” The Bureau was an idea promoted strongly by Elizabeth Warren, now a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, when she was an adviser to President Obama.

The appeals court stopped short of shutting down the agency altogether, as it had been asked to do. But, saying it was deeply troubled by the fact that the Bureau operated entirely on its own, and under the “unilateral” leadership of a single director, the court modified that structure by – in effect — putting the Bureau into the Executive Branch and by explicitly giving the president the authority to fire the director at any time, for any reason and even for no reason at all—in legal terms, “at will.”

The court majority accomplished that feat by simply deleting from the law creating the Bureau a phrase that allowed the director to be removed only “for cause,” meaning that he could only be discharged for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Under that provision, the director could not be fired even for a deep disagreement on policy with the president, the constitutional head of the Executive Branch.

The first director of the Bureau is Richard Cordray, a former state official in Ohio. He has a five-year term that began in the summer of 2013 so, under the law as written, he could serve until 2018 even after a change in the presidency. He now will be subject to removal by the new president chosen in November. (The court opinion spoke highly of Cordray in a footnote.)

As set up by Congress, the court majority said, the Bureau director can use “enormous executive power” even while being “unaccountable” and “unchecked.” It described that official as the single most powerful official anywhere in the government, other than the president.

Major portions of the 101-page majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and joined by Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, were devoted to the constitutional analysis and history of the independent agencies as a group. It found that, of the many such agencies created since 1887, only the Bureau was set up with a single director as its head.

The checks and balances system works in other independent agencies, the opinion said, because they all have several members who can check each other. The president, the majority noted, is checked by being accountable to the entire nation and by the constitutional command that he must “faithfully execute: the laws passed by Congress. No one, it found, checks the Bureau director.

I have talked to Lisa about a bigger overall concern with independent agencies e.g. those agencies specifically NOT in the executive branch. At the SEC, CFTC, FEC< and the FTC 90% of what they do is law enforcement - investigate and bring cases. During the Transition (and even in the WH) we can't know anything about that. To the extent these agencies "make policy" it is largely through the cases they bring and to a lesser extent through rulemaking. Rulemaking (a lot of which the FCC does) is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act and any conversations with anyone about a proposed or ongoing rule must be publicly disclosed, recorded, etc. I don't know if there are specific rules about going into independent agencies, but as I recall in 92 at the end of the day we decided the risks of appearing to involve the transition personnel in ongoing law enforcement or rulemaking were just too high and we did not go in. There is also - arguablely - a separation of powers issue as these are not executive branch entities. We concluded that everything we needed to know we could get from people familiar with the agencies and the public record. Obviously we have concerns like this at DoJ, but there are more controls in place there than at the agencies, and it is part of the executive branch. c I would be interested to know if we have done any thinking or analysis on this. Hate to raise a question with out answering it, but this one is worth it..

Most sources are illegal. Especially in today's world of "non-disclosure agreements". Also, not ONE email has been proven false.

Not one of the wiki leaks emails have been proven true...you trust the communists who hacked the email accounts?

You trust the individual that allowed the murder of four Americans then lied to America about it?

I trust Russia and HRC the same. They're all political actors. They're all the same.

Brietbart lied and you bought it.

I guess I'm confused as to what the standard is around here.

We're apparently suppose to believe these emails are real, but not allowed to question if the Russians did it or not.